Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Industry Standards?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    10

    Default Industry Standards?

    Hey everyone,

    I remember reading somewhere about the industry standards regarding end of line resistors, and im sure that the standard was to use deol, can anyone confirm this? Also does anyone know where to find a copy of the standards online? Standards in NZ would be preferential, but anywhere else is good too

    thanks heaps



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    173
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 37 Times in 24 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Reputation
    445

    Default

    The standards are copyrighted and can be purchased. Many years ago my public library had a set. The standards recommend deol and that alarm panels have capacity for deol.

  • #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney Metro, NSW
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 34 Times in 31 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Reputation
    240

    Default

    Hello.

    Standards are changing from AS to AS/NZ as they review them.

    AS/NZS 2201.1:2007 Intruder alarm systems—Client's premises—Design, installation, commissioning and maintenance
    AS 2201.2—2004 Intruder alarm systems—Monitoring centres
    AS 2201.3—1991 Intruder alarm systems—Detection devices for internal use
    AS 2201.4—1990 Intruder alarm systems—Wire-free systems installed in client's premises
    AS/NZS 2201.5:2008 Intruder alarm systems—Alarm transmission systems

    Back to the OP: AS2201.3 1991 deals with the devices for internal detection:
    2.6 END OF LINE SUPERVISION All detectors shall be installed on an alarm input circuit, i.e. electrically supervised to one of the categories detailed in Clause 4.7 of AS 2201.1. (The one that deals with design, installation commisioning and maintenance.)

    Clause 4.7 does not exist... but the "classes" refered to go through from single end of line Class 1 and 2 to double end of line in Class 3 and 4.
    Choice of class depends on the application on the basis of a likely hood of attach vs consequences thereof.
    Also in AS2201.1:
    2.3.2 Zoning
    Individual or addressable zones shall be provided for each powered electronic detection
    device (e.g., devices such as movement detectors, etc.).
    Individual or addressable zones shall also be provided for each unpowered detection device (e.g., electromechanical devices such as reed switches etc.), except where identical multiple devices are installed on common adjacent detection points (e.g., double doors or multiple windows within the same frame).
    2.3.3 End-of-line supervision
    End-of-line supervision devices shall be terminated within detection devices where
    possible. Where this is not possible, they shall be terminated within a junction box fitted
    with tamper-detection devices meeting the requirements of Clause 3.16.3.5. The junction
    box shall be located immediately adjacent to the detection devices and interconnecting
    cables shall not be visible.

  • #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    10

    Default Australian standards copyright

    One of the biggest hurdles in managing the copyright of standards, is the misconception that Standards Australia is a govt dept and therefore the technical content within a standard is public domain.

    Standards Australia is a not-for-profit organisation, relying heavily on the sale of standards as an important part of their revenue stream. When parts of a standard are extracted and used ( by another) to illustrate a particular point there is a concern the material is being used in a manner which may contravene the Copyright Act (Cth) 1968

    Referencing the Section and/or Clauses from the standard may have been a wiser choice than extracting and distributing direct material.

  • #5
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,495
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 600 Times in 421 Posts
    Rep Power
    322
    Reputation
    4629

    Default

    With respect, Copyright Manager (of SAI Global or Standards?) I think "Fair Use" is the case here.

    One of the things I've always found frustrating is the desire for people to adhere to standards being hampered by the expense of obtaining copies. Particularly as it's difficult to 'try before you buy' the way you might with another publication. From personal experience, I've had buyer's remorse paying for and downloading an expensive standard only to find it was:

    a) Referencing other standards. Where does the recursion end?
    b) Hard to understand. Have a look at the audience here. They aren't engineers and simply want a 'dummy's guide to best practice'.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to downunderdan For This Useful Post:

    pca15 (19-03-12)

  • #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 90 Times in 56 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    619

    Default

    Until the Australian standards are enforceable, this discussion can form no conclusions! I can still legally use single eol if I choose to (not that I would) and this type of alarm is still effective.
    As for having the junction box monitored for tampering, who has ever tampered a connection at a roller door reed? The standard says one thing, but we all do the other, and legally.

  • #7
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,495
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 600 Times in 421 Posts
    Rep Power
    322
    Reputation
    4629

    Default

    Hound-Dog, you're conflating legislation with standards. They are not the same thing. There is no "EOL Act 1997". Just a set of guidelines, codes and practices.

    So, are you going to gaol for breaching them? No. However there could be civil consequences such as an insurer wriggling out of a claim or a lawsuit finding you negligent. Realistically of course you'll probably get away with it as you know, but you won't be able to sleep at night...

  • #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney Metro, NSW
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 34 Times in 31 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Reputation
    240

    Default

    Appoligies for quoting standard - i missed was not for profit not even government standard. I assumed government thing that everyone should know about. Yes it was hard to find, once there, quoting a few clauses seemed ok (I thought not finished review or some problem as well) and BTW why not all parts updated at once so crossreferences corrected? To have bits from 1990 in with 2008 updates. What happened to the rest?

    So who gets a standard (from not for profit non government) up to the stage of Legislation / Act which is government enforceable? Maybe that is where industry bodies should be pushing hard otherwise as posters here say these standards are open to question.
    Last edited by pca15; 19-03-12 at 08:59 AM. Reason: Spelling - damn small screens on phone

  • #9
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,495
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 600 Times in 421 Posts
    Rep Power
    322
    Reputation
    4629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pca15 View Post
    So who gets a standard (from not for profit non government) up to the stage of Legislation / Act which is government enforceable? Maybe that is where industry bodies should be pushing hard otherwise as posters here say these standards are open to question.
    They are not really that open to question and are quite prescriptive. What is negotiable is whether a person complies or doesn't.

    I do not believe this country needs any more laws. It needs fewer. Moreover, within the security industry, at least in NSW, every attempt to impose regulations has simply created more red-tape for legitimate decent businesses while the shonkies continue to act with impunity due to ignorance (at best) and malevolence at worst. More laws won't affect people who choose to ignore them in the first place.

    Consumer awareness however is relevant and that is an area where insurers could make more effort. Right now many of them simply refer to "back to base" alarm, even though that could mean a "back to bodgie" non-certified monitoring centre supervising a crappy alarm over an unreliable pathway. Happens all the time.

  • #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 90 Times in 56 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    619

    Default

    I agree Dan. I don't want to see the industry regulated any harder, but I do want to see the standard of service to clients raised! How would you suggest we get rid of the shonkies, if we can't enforce the recommendations of the Australian Standards? Obviously the existing regulations are just being shunned by those shonks who will do whatever they want to until (if) they get caught and shut down!

  • #11
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,495
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 600 Times in 421 Posts
    Rep Power
    322
    Reputation
    4629

    Default

    I'm a big believer in market forces. If the average consumer has the choice between a crook, a shonk and a decent person, they'll usually go for the decent person. In their quest to shut down the bad operators, the government have failed to highlight and encourage the good operators.

    Currently there is no easy way for an average consumer to tell. All websites look similar, every car has an Industry Association sticker on it. Everyone has a Master Licence. The only remaining determinant is price and the shonkies will always be cheaper because they don't pay that whole "tax" thing.

  • #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 90 Times in 56 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    619

    Default

    I think that is what Inner Range were going to do. They got a team of Factory Certified techs, and promised they would be recommended to their customers. That went south very quickly, because anyone with a licence can still install the Concept panels, even if they don't know what they are doing!

  • #13
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,495
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 600 Times in 421 Posts
    Rep Power
    322
    Reputation
    4629

    Default

    Not sure about that Hound-Dog. There is also an incentive for vendors to be able to raise the level of assumed knowledge and reduce the number of timewasting support calls they receive.

    When 'Imaz' and colleagues ring Inner Range, they won't get past the gatekeeper.

  • #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Roma Qld
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    96
    Reputation
    40

    Default

    Hound-Dog, I have seen a roller door reed that was setup for tamper, done incorrectly and the reed was actually just disconnected by someone at the premises which just proved that the way they are wired and there is 4 more all the same is just plain wrong and they all show sealed even when open. The customer was horrified when I showed them and they we straight back to the installer who said there was nothing wrong with them. Hopefully I will be able to remove the strangle hold this supplier has and be able to get these up to functioning. This is not really a direct standards issue but just lazy, stupid or incompetent installer trying to look as though he was doing the correct this to the standard.

    Back on the standards, the issue I have is because of the cost, I could say this is the standard and XYZ Installer could say no I am wrong and this is the standard and as a customer they can't just go to a website and look it up and go no this is the truth now I know for myself. Most won't ever bother but the couple that want to will have to buy the standard to look for themselves. I think they should be a Gov Funded so that the standards are FREE to all and lets get the Dodgy brothers installers out of the industry.

  • #15
    Senior Member
    downunderdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,495
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 600 Times in 421 Posts
    Rep Power
    322
    Reputation
    4629

    Default

    There is nothing to prevent you from showing them your own copy of the relevant standard, legislation, manufacturer's handbook etc.

    Although what you've described sounds like straightforward malpractice and could probably be resolved fairly swiftly. As with any defects you inherit, just make sure you capture evidence before etc. so that nobody can say "it was working until you touched it".

  • The Following User Says Thank You to downunderdan For This Useful Post:

    Hound-Dog (24-05-13)

  • #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    347
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 114 Times in 66 Posts
    Rep Power
    196
    Reputation
    1527

    Default

    Sounds like the gun debate...

    While the standards may not be enforceable, you do get customers like banks / schools / prisons etc requiring you to fit to a standard like DEOL resistors.
    So in effect, you are obliged to do so under that contract. Thats about the only enforceable way of doing it.
    Of course for the average joe.... it is up to their judge of character.


    Quote Originally Posted by downunderdan View Post
    They are not really that open to question and are quite prescriptive. What is negotiable is whether a person complies or doesn't.

    I do not believe this country needs any more laws. It needs fewer. Moreover, within the security industry, at least in NSW, every attempt to impose regulations has simply created more red-tape for legitimate decent businesses while the shonkies continue to act with impunity due to ignorance (at best) and malevolence at worst. More laws won't affect people who choose to ignore them in the first place.

    Consumer awareness however is relevant and that is an area where insurers could make more effort. Right now many of them simply refer to "back to base" alarm, even though that could mean a "back to bodgie" non-certified monitoring centre supervising a crappy alarm over an unreliable pathway. Happens all the time.

  • #17
    Senior Member IPAlarms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
    Rep Power
    178
    Reputation
    94

    Default

    I think you have a very healthy balance in the Australian Security industry which has sustained a healthy market over many years. On the contrary, the UK market has been badly stunted by over regulation. Them Brits do love their red tape to keep them pesky entrepreneurs under control.

  • #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts
    Rep Power
    122
    Reputation
    484

    Default

    I think there would be a fairly easy fix.

    Have a standard course for technicians entering the industry.
    The recently talked about ASIAL course would be a good example.

    Licensing should employ some vastly experienced techs around the country who attend a site and inspect an install.
    Any crappy and shoddy work can be addressed back to the installer with a bill from licensing for their time.

    Of course there should be a three strikes and your unlicenced penalty also.

    This is pretty simplified but im sure it could work

  • The Following User Says Thank You to itscrowtime For This Useful Post:

    TheAlarmGuy (25-05-13)

  • #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    40

    Default Try operating in Tasmania!

    I agree with a lot of what has been said above, but here in Tassie we have NO licensing for either businesses or installers so the level of workmanship by self taught techs and backyard style operators is appaling. I agree that regulation, unless enforced by spot inspections etc., does not work. I refer to ACMA cabling rules - nobody here could care less because in nearly 20 years as a security tech and business owner I have not even heard of an inspection of an installation. This is why we see power, data, fire and security cables run down a single catenery in the majority of large installations / construction. I run my business to the best of my ability with experienced techs who have undertaken training, we adhere to the standards etc. but in doing so we lose out on jobs due to our prices being a little higher. We are a member of ASIAL and personally I think it is time that our industry was recognised as a stand alone trade - not confused with electrical etc. It is time we had a trade certification in place such as the electrical industry where it is simply illegal to do security installation etc without being licensed. We see too many jobs done here by electrical companies, who win a tender because security is part of the electrical spec, only to completely screw it up and provide a sub-standard system to the client. Unfortunately this seems to be more prevalent in Government tenders such as the School jobs over the past year or so - we have had to fix numerous problems at a local school where half of the existing Tecom system was not even reconnected by the electricians. Before you sparkys start jumping up and down, I too am a sparky by trade and have a contractors license with an electrician who also works with us on security jobs. We have however had him trained etc so he is more than competent to work on different systems. I am refering to those electrical companies who dont do this and just expect that their guys will be ok, even if they only work on one Tecom system a year! I dont have the answers to the problems but I think it is time that we all got serious about it and ASIAL held some forums around the country and actually started to do something about it. Thats my two bob's worth anyway!

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to celica71 For This Useful Post:

    AdRock (25-05-13),MCman (25-05-13),Muzza78 (26-05-13)

  • #20
    Member AdRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    329
    Thanks
    167
    Thanked 45 Times in 43 Posts
    Rep Power
    130
    Reputation
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pca15 View Post
    Individual or addressable zones shall also be provided for each unpowered detection device (e.g., electromechanical devices such as reed switches etc.), except where identical multiple devices are installed on common adjacent detection points (e.g., double doors or multiple windows within the same frame).
    This is a massive annoyance for me, putting a heap of smoke detectors (usually non latching) or the entire perimeter of the premises' reed switches on the one zone !! Im sure it sounded like a good idea at the time, but trying to fault find it afterwards... nightmare. It's interesting there is a standard for it because now i have something to back up my plight when someone wants to save money and put 24 zones on an 8 zone panel.

    Re the DEOL, here in SA, all though my training there was nothing to say you have to fit DOEL, only single EOL at the detector (or as close as possible as mentioned above) As most panels have EOL in line, if the cable is tampered with or cut the panel will go into alarm so I'm not sure why they would make DEOL compulsory?

  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •